Saturday, December 22, 2012

PRINCESS BARRY WAS HOPING TO JUST FOCUS ON HIS 2ND CORONATION. FOR PRINCESS BARRY THE FOCUS MUST ALWAYS BE ON HIM.

SO
WHEN HE DASHED OVER TO THE FUNERAL OF AN 88-YEAR-OLD MAN, HE THOUGHT HE
WAS DOING THE WORLD A FAVOR BY SHARING A FEW THOUGHTS ON THE LIFE OF
PRINCESS BARRY. IT DID NOT GO OVER WELL:

Someone needs to tell Barack Obama—it must get particularly confusing
this time of year—that his own birth is not Year One, the date around
which all other events are understood. His much-noted, self-referential
tic was on cringe-worthy display Friday when the president gave his
eulogy for the late Sen. Daniel Inouye, who served in Congress for half a
century representing Obama’s birth state of Hawaii.

Obama likes to see events through the lens of his own life’s
chronology. Thus we learn that Inouye was elected to the Senate when
Obama was 2 years old. Now you could make this relevant by describing
how Inouye worked to send federal dollars (you don’t have to call it
“pork” at a funeral) to transform Hawaii’s roads and schools, for
example, so that the Hawaii Obama grew up in had the kind of facilities
people on the mainland had long taken for granted. But no, we simply
learn that Inouye was Obama’s senator until he left the state to go to
college—something apparently more momentous than anything Inouye did
during his decades in office.

After morning prayers,Kitabat reports,
protesters gathered in Falluja to protest the arrests and Nouri
al-Maliki. They chanted down with Nouri's brutality and, in a move that
won't change their minds, found themselves descended upon by Nouri's
forces who violently ended the protest. Before that, Al Mada reports, they were chanting that terrorism and Nouri are two sides of the same coin. Kitabat also reports
that demonstrations also took place in Tikrit, Samarra, Ramdia and just
outside Falluja with persons from various tribes choosing to block
the road connecting Anbar Province (Falluja is the capitol of Anbar)
with Baghdad. Across Iraq, there were calls for Nouri to release the
bodyguards of Minister of Finance Rafie al-Issawi. Alsumaria notes demonstrators in Samarra accused Nouri of attempting to start a sectarian war.

Iraq's
Finance Minister Rafei al-Essawi said Thursday that "a militia force"
raided his house, headquarters and ministry in Baghdad and kidnapped
150 people, and he holds the nation's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki,
responsible for their safety.

Members
of the al-Essawi's staff and guards were among those kidnapped from the
ministry Thursday, the finance minister said. He also said that his
computers and documents were searched at his house and headquarters. He
said the head of security was arrested Wednesday at a Baghdad checkpoint
for unknown reasons and that now the compound has no security.

Kitabat explains
that these raids took place in the Green Zone, were carried out by the
Iraqi military and that Nouri, yesterday evening, was insisting he knew
nothing about them. In another report, Tawfeeq quotes
al-Essawi stating, "My message to the prime minister: You are a man
who does not respect partnership at all, a man who does not respect the
law and the constitution, and I personally hold you fully responsible
for the safety of the kidnapped people." BBC News adds,
"Rafie al-Issawi, a prominent member of the al-Iraqiyya political bloc,
said about 150 of his bodyguards and staff members had been arrested on
Thursday." Nine in some reports, the Ministry of the Interior states 10. So al-Essawi's just a liar?

No.
What appears to have happened is what Nouri practices, it's disgusting
and it's illegal and the White House looks the other way every damn
time.

What
appears to have happened was that about 150 people were kidnapped. Of
those 150, 10 or so were arrested on charges of 'terrorism.' And the
rest?

They're
being held. They're being 'questioned' which, in Nouri's Iraq, means
they're being tortured. At least one of Tareq al-Hashemi's bodyguards
was tortured to death -- beaten so badly he had kidney failure. Two
women who were part of Tareq's office staff were held for weeks,
kidnapped and held for weeks, to get them to 'confess.' Nouri did the
same thing in October when he 'fired' (he didn't have that power) Sinan
al-Shabibi as Govenor of the Central Bank of Iraq. Suddenly,
al-Shabibi's staff was rounded up and 'detained.'

Since December, those working for Tareq al-Hashemi have been rounded up by Nouri's forces. At the end of January, Amnesty International was calling
for the Baghdad government "to reveal the whereabouts of two women
arrested earlier this month, apparently for their connection to the
country's vice-president. Rasha Nameer Jaafer al-Hussain and Bassima
Saleem Kiryakos were arrested by security forces at their homes on 1
January. Both women work in the media team of Iraqi Vice-President
Tareq al-Hashemi, who is wanted by the Iraqi authorities on
terrorism-related charges." Yesterday, al-Hashemi noted that his
bodyguard had died and stated that it appeared he had died as a result
of torture.

Alsumaria notes
Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi is calling for the international
community to call out the death of his bodyguard, Amer Sarbut Zeidan
al-Batawi, who died after being imprisoned for three months. al-Hashemi
has stated the man was tortured to death. The photo Alsumaria runs of
the man's legs (only the man's legs) appear to indicate he was tortured,
welts and bruises and scars. They also report
that the Baghdad Operations Command issued a statement today insisting
that they had not tortured al-Batawi and that he died of chronic renal.
They also insist that he was taken to the hospital for medical
treamtent on March 7th and died March 15th. Renal failure would be
kidney failure. And that's supposed to prove it wasn't torture?

If
you work for an outlet that just spits out what you are told and didn't
actually learn a profession, yes. Anyone with half a brain, however,
apparently that's half more than the average journalist possess today
knows to go to science. The Oxford Journal is scientific. This is from the Abstract for GH Malik, AR Reshi, MS Najar, A Ahmad and T Masood's "Further observations on acute renal failure following physical torture" from 1994:

Thirty-four
males aged 16–40 (mean 25) years in the period from August 1991 to
February 1993 presented in acute renal failure (ARF), 3–14 (mean 5) days
after they had been apprehended and allegedly tortured in Police
interrogation centres in Kashmir. All were beaten involving muscles of
the body, in addition 13 were beaten on soles, 11 were trampled over and
10 had received repeated electric shocks.

Out
of that group? 29 did live. Five died. I don't think the Baghdad
Command Operations created any space between them and the charge with
their announcement of renal failure as the cause of death. But, hey, I
went to college and studied real topics -- like the law and political
science and sociology and philosophy -- and got real degrees not
glorified versions of a general studies degree with the word
"journalism" slapped on it. So what do I know?

We
have to note that -- all of that -- because one of the worst outlets on
Iraq decided to 'report' today and they didn't get one damn fact
right. We'll get back to it.

Now
if Bully Boy Bush were in office currently, I would honestly cut him
some slack here because he can't call out Nouri for rounding up innocent
people, not after he ordered US troops to pick up the wives and mothers
of various supposed criminals, not after he ordered US troops to 'talk
tough' to these women, not after he ordered US troops to let them think
they would be raped and tortured if they did not talk. (As far as is
known, no woman was raped or tortured by US troops to give up
information on a family member. But many Iraqi women were threatened
and bullied into believing that would happen. There is a word for that:
"Terrorism.") So if Bully Boy Bush were still occupying the White
House, I'd understand why he couldn't call out actions so similar to
his own. But President Barack Obama is a different person -- one who
supposedly hasn't decided that the US government should demonstrate less
scruples than the mafia -- so I'm having a real hard time understanding
why the current White House can't call out these clear violations of
the law and of human rights.

We all need to grasp and acknowledge what's happening. AFP's quoting
Abdelsattar Bayraqdar ("Higher Judicial Council spokesman") stating
that the commander of the bodyguards has "confessed" -- these are forced
confessions. And it's past time that Nouri's screwed up 'justice'
system in Baghdad was called out. The judiciary does not issue
statements on guilt before any trial. They did that with Tareq
al-Hashemi as well (with multiple judges holding that press conference
and one 'objective' judge telling reporters present that Tareq had tried
to kill him). This is a joke but it's a sad one because Iraqis have to
live with this. It's yet another failure of the US government's war
on Iraq.

As a result of these actions, Al Mada reports,
Sahwa leader Ahmed Abu Risha has called for Nouri to apologize (and do
so within 24 hours) and to release the hostages. He floated the notion
that Nouri's refusal could relate in the international highway that
links Iraq to Jordan being cut off. Al Mada also notes
that a member of the Sadr bloc spoke to the media to note that this is
yet another political crisis, yet another one created by Nouri in his
six years in office, that the way this was carried out makes people lose
trust/faith in the government, that this seems to be an echo of the
divisions Nouri started last year with the targeting of Tareq
al-Hashemi, that the operation was unobjective and unprofessional and
that the lack of respect shown to Minister al-Issawi is a worry and
threat to all the political blocs. The article notes that Iraqiya
repeated their assertion from a few weeks back that Nouri creates
these crises to distract from his failure as head of state. That's not
all Iraqiya is doing. The Iraq Times reports
that they have formed two delegations. The one headed by Speaker of
Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi will go to Erbil and discuss this latest
crisis with various Kurdish officials including KRG President Massoud
Barzani. A second delegation (the head of which is not noted but is
most likely Saleh al-Mutlaq) will remain in Baghdad and meet with cleric
and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr and with the head of the Islamic
Supreme Council of Iraq Ammar al-Hakim.

Al Arabiya reports
he held a press conference today with Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi and Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq standing by his
side as al-Issawi declared, "I call on the prime minister to resign,
because he did not behave like a man of state."

Rafei
al-Essawi is a Sunni. He is also a member of Iraqiya, the political
slate that came in first in the March 2010 parliamentary elections.
Nouri's State of Law came in second. Per the Constitution, Iraiqya
should have had first crack at forming a government and one of their
members named prime minister-designate. However, Barack Obama decided
-- the will of the Iraqi voters, democracy and the Iraqi Constitution be
damned -- he wanted Nouri to have a second term instead. From John
Barry's "'The Engame' Is A Well Researched, Highly Critical Look at U.S. Policy in Iraq" (Daily Beast):

Washington has little political and no military influence
over these developments [in Iraq]. As Michael Gordon and Bernard
Trainor charge in their ambitious new history of the Iraq war, The Endgame,
Obama's administration sacrificed political influence by failing in
2010 to insist that the results of Iraq's first proper election be
honored: "When the Obama administration acquiesced in the questionable
judicial opinion that prevented Ayad Allawi's bloc, after it had won the
most seats in 2010, from the first attempt at forming a new
government, it undermined the prospects, however slim, for a compromise
that might have led to a genuinely inclusive and cross-sectarian
government."

Friday, December 21, 2012

PRINCESS BARRY O CAN NOT LIVE DOWN PSY NO MATTER HOW HARD SHE TRIES TO SWALLOW.

GIRLFRIEND MET WITH PSY TWO WEEKS AGO, DESPITE, AS FUSE TV NOTES;A lot of questions swirled around Psy's recent visit to the White House to meet President Obama. To some, it was, will Obama bring up the "Gangnam Style" singer's past lyrics
about "killing fu-cking Yankees" and murdering "their daughters,
mothers, daughters-in-law, and fathers"? To others, it was more pressing
issues, wondering aloud if the Leader of the Free World has performed
the most popular dance of 2012.

IN OTHER WORDS, HE TAPPED IT, HE SLAPPED IT GANGNAM STYLE.

AND PRETTY PRINCESS BARRY O LAID BACK AND ENJOYED IT.

COME ON MEN AND WOMEN OF THE AMERICAN MILITARY, ARE YOU GOING TO DENY PRINCESS BARRY HER CHANCE TO GET SLUTTY?

US
House Rep Mike Kelly: Ambassador Burns, when you talk about resources
-- only 1% of the budget -- so what is 1$ of the budget? So what is our
budget?

Thomas Nides: Our budget is $50 billion.

US House Rep Mike Kelly: Fifty-billion dollars.

Thomas Nides: That's right. Approximately 8% of the defence budget.

US
House Rep Mike Kelly: Okay. So when people hear "1%" it doesn't sound
like a lot of money but fifty billion is certainly a lot of money.
When we talk about resources -- and I'm trying to understand because
I've listened to a couple of different briefings, I've heard Mr.
Pickering and Adm Mullen, I've heard you gentlemen today and think
maybe you're not the folks that should be here because, as Mr. Johnson
pointed out, you weren't really part of the decision making process.
But what I'm trying to understand, what I can't get my mind wrapped
around is everybody says this was a very unstable and highly volatile
area. Then why, for God's sake, would we take out the best trained
people we have? Why? Why did we move the SST team? Was it because of
money

Thomas Nides: Well as you're aware, as we spoke about earlier --

US House Rep Mike Kelly: It's just a yes or a no. Was it because of money?

Thomas Nides: No, it --

US
House Rep Mike Kelly: No, it wasn't because of money. Because we know
the SST team really came out of the Department of Defense budget,
right? So it didn't have anything to do with your budget --

Thomas Nides: The SST, as you are aware were in Tripoli and --

US
House Rep Mike Kelly: No, I'm aware where they were. And I'm also
aware that Lt Col Woods had begged to stay there. Mr. Nordstrom, the
regional officer, had begged to stay there. Ms. Lambe said it wasn't
because of money that they couldn't stay, somebody made a really bad
decision. Now I don't have any idea of the voting registration of
Ambassador [Chris] Stevens, of Sean Smith, Mr. [Tyrone] Woods, Mr.
[Glen] Doherty. I have no idea how any of these folk registered. It's
not a matter of it being a partisan issue. We have four dead
Americans. I'm trying for the life of me to understand how, when we
say, [. . .] You know what everybody says about the area? It's a wild
west show, nobody's in charge. We're in a host country that can't
supply us with the assets that we need? What in the world were we
thinking? Why would we pull out people and make our ambassador more
vulnerable? And who made the decision? And if neither one of you made
the decision, say 'I didn't have anything to do with it.' Because, what
I'm finding out in this administration is that nobody had anything to
do with it. If you had anything to do with it, just say I had
something to do with it and I made the decision.

Thomas Nides: No, we didn't. We did not have anything to do with it. That said we do need to make sure of --

US
House Rep Mike Kelly: Okay. Are you aware of a GAO request from 2009
to do a review because they thought it was woefully -- a strategic
review of our embassies were not taken and it was a strategic problem,
a security problem, anyone of you aware of that? We had a hearing on
October the 10th, the GAO said that to this day the Department has not
responded or done the review. I find it interesting now we're going to
do the review. It's a little bit late. So that hasn't taken place.
Now, I want to ask you, in addition to the four dead Americans, how many
people were wounded that night?

William
Burns: I think there were three Americans who were wounded that night
and one of the wounded is still in Walter Reed Hospital and --

That's
from this afternoon's House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing.
Deputy Secretary of State William J. Burns and Deputy Secretary of State
for Management and Resources Thomas R. Nides appeared before the
Committee to address the findings from the investigation by former
Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Retired General Mike Mullen (former
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) into the events of September 11,
2012 when the US Consulate in Benghazi was attacked and Sean Smith, Glen
Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Chris Stevens were killed. There are two
versions of the report -- the classified one and the unclassified. The
unclassified version has been [PDF format warning] posted online at the State Dept's website.

Senator
John Kerry: I also want to emphasize that every member of this
committee felt the loss of Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team in a
very personal way. We knew Chris Stevens well before he came before us
for confirmation. He had been a Pearson Fellow for Senator Lugar and
the Committee. We knew the depth of his character, of his intelligence
and his dedication. His death was a horrible blow in personal terms to
the Committee as well as to the country and his family. It evoked an
outpouring of emotion on our Committee from the condolence book in our
office in the Capitol to the private gestures of members of this
Committee who shared their grief in private ways at Senate 116 signing
the condolence books, touching the picture, saying a prayer. Equally
tragic was the loss of three courageous men whom I personally never met
but whose families I had the chance to greet and hug when the military
brought their loved ones' remains back, one last time, to Andrews Air
Force Base. That heartbreaking and solemn ceremony brought home the
impact of our nation's loss. Glen Doherty was a former Navy SEAL. He
was also from my home state and I talked a couple of times with his
family. Tyrone Woods was a former SEAL, Sean Smith an Air Force
veteran, all people for whom service to country was their life. So
today we again say "thank you" to all of them, to the fallen and the
families. They all gave to our nation and we are grateful beyond words
for their service and their sacrifice.

That
was also today. No, the Senator didn't show up at the House hearing.
John Kerry is also the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
and Burns and Nides appeared before his Committee this morning. The two
were appearing in place of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who had
planned to attend but then passed out over the weekend, injured herself
in her fall and is on doctor's orders to work out of her home.
(Actually, she was ordered to be on rest. She got her doctor to agree
to allow her to work out of her home.) Chair John Kerry noted that the
plan was for her to now appear before the Committee in January (she
can't appear this month, this was the last hearing for the Committee
this year). US House Rep Ileana Ros-Lehtinen is the outgoing Chair of
the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. (Outgoing because the
Republicans impose term limits, she'll remain in Congress, she was
re-elected in November.) Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen noted that Hillary
is also scheduled to appear before the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs in January.

A
few observations about the hearings. Burns was a good witness. Nides
was testy and combative in the afternoon (House hearing). That may make
'sense' to some. And if you want to be simplistic (and stupid) you can
assume that a Democrat being in the White House, the witnesses had an
easier time in the morning when a Democrat controls the Committee
(Kerry) than in the afternoon when a Republican controls the Committee
(Ros-Lehtinen). But that wasn't the case. (And both Chairs conducted
their hearings professionally.) Nides was most testy when being
questioned by US House Rep Russ Carnahan. Carnahan is a Democrat and an
easy going person in a hearing. It was never clear why Nides decided
to get rude but it was uncomfortable and Ros-Lehtinen tried to smooth it
over after by thanking Carnahan for a photo of his grandfather (former
US House Rep A.S.J. Carnahan) serving on the House Foreign Relations
Committee decades ago. (Russ Carnahan is the son of former Senator Jean
Carnahan who was appointed to the Senate to fill her husband's seat
after Senator Mel Carnahan passed away while in office.) Repeating,
there was no visible reason for Nides to have been rude to US House Rep
Russ Carnahan.

It
was not a good day for Democrats period. If I'm a member of Congress
who got damn lucky that the FBI waited until after the election to round
up a member of my staff who was a sex offender (waited until after the
election on the orders of Homeland Security), I really don't think I'd
be on a high horse about how much I value accountability. Especially
since I didn't take accountability for providing a sex offender with the
prestige to brag that he was working for a US Senator. So, if I were
that member of the Senate, I think I'd try to keep a low profile.
Fortunately, that's the only embarrassing moment for the Senate Dems in
today's hearing. In the House? Four embarrassing moments. We'll note
Priss-Priss. If US House Rep Gerry Connolly wants to waste everyone's
time with crap, well let's hope his constituents hold him accountable.
But in the halls of Congress, you're not a little girl or a boy going
through puberty. No one needs to hear your voice breaking as you go
higher and higher. Your mincing as you attempt to be rude hurts the
ears and it doesn't come off stately or professional. And your mocking
of other members of the Congress was extremely unprofessional and
something you should be ashamed of.

US
House Rep Jeff Fortenberry would later declare, "I don't care to be
lectured to about the need to be bi-partisan particularly in such an
intolerant and uncivil tone. Now this is an important hearing. There
are serious questions here and to suggest that our motives are a ruse
for political motivation to me is disrespectful and discourteous and I
think unworthy of the levity of this important matter." Though he spoke
much later (he was the last to speak), he was referring to Connolly.
Fortenberry is correct that it was intolerant and uncivil.

One of the embarrassing moments in the House will be covered by Ava tonight at Trina's site, Wally's going to note money tonight at Rebecca's site and Ruth's covering the House hearing at her site tonight.

.

The
Senate was more civil and more focused on getting answers to
questions. There was no speechifying or pretending you were actually a
spokesperson for the White House (that happened in the House hearing).
Senator Barbara Boxer, if she's at the top of her game in a hearing,
usually hits a note that others will pick up on in the weeks and months
to come. It was Boxer who, in April 2008 (April 8, 2008),
wanted to know why the Iraqi government wasn't paying for the Sahwa?
She is the one who asked why these fighters who were paid to stop
fighting the installed Iraqi government and the US forces were being
paid by US tax payers -- $182 million a year. Had Boxer not raised the
issue, it might never have been raised and the US taxpayers might still
be footing that bill.

Near the end of her questioning, she slipped in the following.

Senator
Barbara Boxer: May I ask one last quick question? Thank you. Was it
appropriate to rely so heavily on Libyan militias to guard American
personnel? How was that decision made and how do we avoid these types
of failures? Are there standard policies and procedures for the hiring
of contract guards? Was Libya an anomaly or are there other embassies
around the world where we're relying on the same type of forces?

Thomas
Nides: Well, as you know, Senator Boxer, we rely upon the Vienna
Convention which we have for over 200 years. The reali -- the fact for
us on the ground is to rely on the local governments to protect us. We
can -- We have to do that because we do not have the ability to have
enough troops on the ground and most of the countries would not allow us
to so we are -- One of the tasks that Secretary Clinton asked us to do
when we send out the assessment teams is to ask two very clear
questions: A country's intent to protect us and their ability to protect
us. Sometimes those two are different. And as we see what we refer to
as the new normal, we have to constantly ask ourselves those questions.

Senator
Barbara Boxer: Would you write to us and let us know if there are any
other facilities that are relying on militia. Thank you. I thank you.

Again,
when Boxer's at the top of her game, there's usually one key exchange
that demonstrates where things are headed, how the issue will be seen by
the Congress. It's very likely that is the big takeaway from the
attack: Why are militias being used, should we be using them? (This
will be addressed more in tomorrow's snapshot as we continue the
coverage of the hearings.)

Thomas
Nides was the disappointment from the State Dept. The report Mullen
and Pickering came up with had a list of recommendations, twenty-nine of
them in fact, as Nides would declare to the Committee. Yet he came
before the Committee to talk about this report and its recommendations
and he can't tell you how many items State has broken the
recommendations down into?

This
isn't a minor issue. Nides, "The Task Force has already met to
translate the recommendations into about 60 specific action items. We
have assigned every single one to a responsible bureau for immediate
implementation and several will be completed by the end of the calendar
year."

"About
60"? If the recommendations have been broken down into action items
and these action items have been assigned throughout the department, he
should know how many there are.

And
if you disagree with me on that he should know the exact number and not
"about 60" since he's testifying to Congress, then maybe this will
change your mind. He also told the Committee, "Secretary Clinton has
charged my office with leading a task force that will ensure that all 29
are implemented quickly and completely -- and to pursue steps above and
beyond the board's report."

If
he's in charge of that, he should know the exact number. Supposedly,
these have been assigned. Then he should know the exact number. Not
only because he was appearing before Congress but also because he's the
person Hillary has tasked to be responsible for ensuring the
implementations are made.

Senator Boxer had another important issue that might take over the one above so we'll also note it.

Senator
Barbara Boxer: Secondly, the troubling thing here is that there were
repeated requests to implement security upgrades in Tripoli and Benghazi
and, as we look at this report, we know what happened. And I would
like to know, do you intend to put it to process -- Sorry, to put into
place a process that would allow for a second review of these requests
by another body in the State Dept? Because it seems like what happened
was the requests came and went to one particular individual or desk and
then it never saw the light of day.

Thomas Nides: Senator, the answer to that is yes.

That's going to be it for today due to space issues. To move from the Congress to Iraq, let's note US House Rep Mike Ross. Roby Brock (City Wire) notes that the Democrat is ending his 12 years in Congress (he lost the election in November) and an interview he gave to Talk Business.
Among the topics he discusses in the interview is Iraq, "I regret my
vote on going to war in Iraq. I sat in the White House with the
President [Bush] and I'll never forget what he said. He said Sadaam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and if military force is
required, it will be 'swift' was the word he gave us… Look, there's evil
dictators all over the world. There's no doubt Sadaam was an evil guy,
but he didn't have nuclear weapons, he didn't have weapons of mass
destruction, and you know America has paid the price through the loss of
lives, through soldiers that are injured in ways that will forever
change their lives, and through the enormous amount of money we spent
which helped contribute to this debt that we have today. Fighting in
that war, and like I said, there's evil dictators all over the world,
but we can't police the world. I think had we not done what we did in
Iraq, I think we could have perhaps been more focused on what we were
doing in Afghanistan, which I certainly supported."

Today a report
was released on the September 11, 2012 attack on the US Consulate in
Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Glen
Doherty and Chris Stevens. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a
classified briefing today on the report. The unlcassified version has
been [PDF format warning] posted online at the State Dept's website.

It's
a damning and disturbing report that will probably most disturb those
State Dept employees stationed overseas and their families -- including
the largest State Dept mission overseas, the one in Iraq. As noted on
page two of the report, "With State Department civilians at the
forefront of U.S. efforts to stabilize and build capacity in Iraq, as
the U.S. military draws down in Afghanistan, and with security threats
growing in volatile environments where the U.S. military is not present
-- from Peshawar to Bamako -- the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) is
being stretched to the limit as never before."

It's
hard to tell which details are the most disturbing? Take the death of
the Ambassador Chris Stevens. His body can't be found -- is he alive or
dead, at this point no one knows -- and, page 25 notes, after "many and
repeated attempts to retrieve the Ambassador having proven fruitless and
militia members warning them the SMC could not be held much longer, the
Annex team departed the SMC, carrying with them the body of IMO [Sean]
Smith." They left before Stevens was found -- dead or alive. Six people
(presumably Libyans, labeled "good Samaritans" in the report) would find
him later in the same area that "many and repeated attempts" failed to
find him. He would be taken to the Benghazi Medical Center (the report
states he was dead when he arrived but doctors attempted to revive him
for 45 minutes) and when the US Embassy in Tripoli was notified that
Stevens had been taken to the hospital? "There was some concern that the
call might be a ruse to lure American personnel into a trap. With the
Benghazi Medical Center (BMC) believed to be dangerous for American
personnel due to the possibility attackers were being treated there, a
Libyan contact of the Special Mission was dispatched to the BMC and
later confirmed the

Ambassador's identity and that he was deceased."

It
was not safe for American diplomats and those working with the
diplomatic coprs to be stationed in Libya. It was not safe and they
should not have been there. Magnify that 100 times and you have Iraq
where the State Dept has its largest presence.

It
was so dangerous in Libya that when the call came in that Ambassador
Stevens was at the hospital -- remember, his whereabouts were unknown
for hours -- the US was unable to send an American to a hospital to see
if it was Stevens and if was alive or dead. That is appalling. That is a
sign of how tremendously unsafe it was.

The
report notes that Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were killed in "an
Annex building," which "came under mortar and RPG attack." Sean Smith
and Chris Stevens apparently died from smoke inhalation. The description
of the two of them them in a so-called safe house which was under fire
and with only one ARSO-I (Assistant Regional Security
Officer-Investigator) to attempt to protect them is shocking and
chilling.

Among
the findings in the investigation led by former Ambassador Thomas
Pickering and Retired General Mike Mullen (former Chair of the Joint
Chiefs)?

The
attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine
gun fire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars against U.S.
personnel at two separate facilities -- the SMC [Special Mission
Compound] and the Annex -- and en route between them. Responsibility for
the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilities and
property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated
the attacks. The board concluded that there was no protest prior to the
attacks, which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.

There is so much incompetence on display. Let's note one section.

About
2150 local [time], the DCM was able to reach Ambassador Stevens, who
briefly reported that the SMC was under attack before the call cut off.
The Embassy notified Benina Airbase in Benghazi of a potential need for
logistic support and aircraft for extraction and received full
cooperation. The DCM contacted the Libyan Presidnt and Prime Minister's
office to urge them to mobilize a rescue effort, and kept Washington
apprised of post's efforts. The Embassy also reached out to Libyan Air
Froce and Armed Forces contacts, February 17 leadership, and UN and
third country embassies, among others. Within hours, Embassy Tripoli
charted a private airplane and deployed a seven-person secruity team,
which included two U.S. military personnel to Benghazi.

At
the direction of the U.S. military's Africa Command (AFRICOM), DoD
moved a remotely piloted, unarmed surveillance aircraft relieved the
first, and monitored the eventual evacuation of personnel from the Annex
to Benghazi airport later on the morning of September 12.

Let's
again note this is the unclassified report. Additional details are in
the classified report. If there are additional details to the above,
they need to be revealed immediately because, as it stands, everything
in the two paragraphs above except for Chris Stevens' phone call, is
wrong -- not a little wrong, life-threatening wrong.

The
scramble being described above is for an extraction. As the public
report reads, extraction was the priority. A US Ambassador is on the
phone with you telling you that his consulate is under attack and the
line goes dead and your first throught is "extraction"?

No,
not if you're following protocol. Protocol wasn't followed as the
unclassified report presents events. Let's be clear, even with the
extraction, protocol wasn't followed. The scramble being described for
several hours inside Libya but outside Benghazi? Did no one receive
training or did they just ignore training? There are SOPs in writing
[Standard Operation Procedure outlines] of what to do in these cases.
There should have been no scramble on extraction, the existing SOP
should have been followed and if someone was too stupid to know what
that was, again, it is written down. But extraction shouldn't have been
the Tripoli staff's chief concern. A consulate was under attack and the
safety of the people at the consulate (and annex) should have been the
primary concern. Doesn't matter if a number of them were CIA (and there
were a number of CIA present). Attempting to secure their safety should
have been the primary focus for Tripoli with extraction being the
secondary focus -- a distant second.

There
was no knowledge of what was going on, who was alive, who was dead, and
you're focused on extraction? Let's remember too that Tripoli wasn't
under attack.

Valerie
Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson, wouldn't have made the
mistakes that appear to have been made (the classified report will have
more details and may explain the above). When he was going up against
Sadam Hussein, he wouldn't have been channeling all efforts into an
extraction while other Americans in the country were under attack. This
is appalling.

This is disgusting for the message it
currently sends State Dept employees who are overseas. Let's take Iraq.
There's an attack on the US in Basra. Baghdad gets the call and instead
of addressing the attack and trying to ensure the security and safety of
those under attack, Baghdad runs around like a chicken with its head
cut off trying to figure out how to order an extraction for Baghdad.

That
is insane. Public hearings start tomorrow. This needs to be addressed
and US diplomatic staff and those working to protect them in foreign
countries need to know that, if an attack takes place, the response will
be to rescue them, not for the unattacked to figure how to quickly
leave the country.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

THESE REPORTERS SEMI LEAVE THE SNARK THAT
IS THE HALLMARK OF OUR SITES TODAY TO GET A LITTLE SERIOUS -- OR RATHER
TO UNLEASH A CAN OF SERIOUS WHOOP-ASS ON BITCH BOI BOB SOMERBY.

FOR
MONTHS NOW, THE DUMB ASS HAS INSISTED THE MOST INSANE THINGS ABOUT THE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012 ATTACK ON THE U.S. CONSULATE IN BENGHAZI WHICH
RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF GLEN DOHERTY, SEAN SMITH, TYRONE WOODS AND
CHRIS STEVENS. THE DUMB ASS HAS SEIZED ON A BAD REPORT IN THE NEW YORK
TIMES -- IMAGINE THAT! A BAD REPORT ON INTEL IN THE NEW YORK TIMES! WHO
WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT! ONLY ANYONE READING THE DAMN PAPER BACK WHEN IT
WAS SELLING THE IRAQ WAR!

AND EVERY ONE ELSE WAS WRONG BECAUSE THE STUPID LITTLE BITCH BOI READ AN ARTICLE.

THAT
IS THIS COMMUNITY'S REPORTING ON A HEARING ON BENGHAZI, THE FIRST
HEARING CONGRESS HELD, THAT C.I., AVA, KAT AND ONE OF OF US (WALLY)
ATTENDED. THAT HEARING SET THE OUTLINES PROVIDED BY THE STATE DEPT.
THAT HEARING ALSO REVEALED A GREAT DEAL AS JASON CHAFFETZ NOTED
REPEATEDLY WHEN IT REVEALED MORE THAN HAD BEEN DECLASSIFIED.

THE WITNESSES WERE SUPPLIED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT. THEY WERE STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES.

FOR
MONTHS NOW, THOSE OF US AT THE HEARING AND THOSE OF US WHO READ THE
ACTUAL REPORTING ON THE HEARING HAVE ROLLED OUR EYES AS VARIOUS LITTLE
BITCH BOIS LIKE BOB SOMERBY HAVE SEIZED ON CREATIVE DETAILS A REPORTER
SUPPLIED HERE OR THERE AND PRETENDED THEY WERE FACTS. THEY WERE NO SUCH
THING.

AND AS ELAINE NOTED IN "BOBBY DUMB F**K," HE
PAINTED HIMSELF INTO A CORNER ON THE LIE ABOUT A PROTEST TAKING PLACE
AND WOULD NEVER ADMIT HE WAS WRONG.

TODAY CNN REPORTS
ON THE GOVERNMENT FINDINGS FROM THE INVESTIGATION LED BY RETIRED ADM.
MIKE MULLEN (FORMER CHAIR OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF) AND FORMER
AMBASSADOR THOMAS PICKERING. NOTE THIS FACT:

The report said "there was no protest prior to the attacks," which it described as "unanticipated in their scale and intensity."

GET
IT? FOR MONTHS LITTLE BITCH BOIS LIKE BOB SOMERBY HAVE LIED TO YOU,
HAVE TREATED YOU LIKE IDIOTS AND FOOLS AND SAID THERE WAS A PROTEST.
THERE WAS NO PROTEST. THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL
HEARING BACK IN OCTOBER.

BUT APPARENTLY YOU DON'T NEED TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK TO STAND AROUND AND LIE WHICH IS WHAT BOB SOMERBY HAS DONE FOR MONTHS NOW.

WILL HE NOW CORRECT HIS LIE?

HELL NO. BUT DAMNED IF HE WON'T CONTINUE WHINING ABOUT THE MEAN PRESS TREATING HIS COLLEGE ROOMMATE AL GORE BADLY.

THERE WAS NO PROTEST.

THIS
COMMUNITY GOT THE COVERAGE ON BENGHAZI RIGHT AND WE DID SO BECAUSE WE
ATTENDED THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS. WE (C.I., AVA, KAT AND WALLY) SAT
THROUGH THEM, WE TOOK NOTES AND WE REPORTED ACCURATELY AND IN DEPTH ON
WHAT TOOK PLACE.

HAVING NOT ATTENDED A SINGLE HEARING
AND APPARENTLY NOT EVEN CATCHING ONE ON C-SPAN, BOB SOMERBY JUST KNEW
HE KNEW BEST ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE HIS WET DREAMS OUTWEIGH FACTS.

NO, HIS WET DREAMS ARE JUST EMBARRASSING.

IT'S PAST TIME FOR THE BLOWHARD TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT HIMSELF.

THIS
IS WORSE THAN WHEN HE ATTACKED FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR JOE WILSON AND
CIA AGENT VALERIE PLAME. THERE HE LIED ABOUT THE TWO BECAUSE HE WAS
FRIENDS WITH FAILED REPORTER MATTHEW COOPER (WHOM THE BUSH
ADMINISTRATION HAD OUTED VALERIE PLAME TO AND MATTHEW COOPER DIDN'T WANT
TO TELL THE TRUTH ON THAT). SO TO DEFEND HIS FELLOW BITCH BOI, BOB
SOMERBY ATTACKED WILSON AND PLAME OVER AND OVER.

THAT WAS DISGUSTING.

BUT
IT HAS BEEN NOTHING COMPARED TO THE LAST THREE MONTHS AS HE HAS
'CREATED' DETAILS ABOUT BENGHAZI THAT WERE REPEATEDLY IN CONFLICT WITH
WHAT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS TOLD CONGRESS IN PUBLIC HEARINGS.

TOMORROW
WE WILL AGAIN BRING ON THE SNARK. TODAY WE WANT TO POINT OUT THAT
BITCH BOI BOB SOMERBY HAS BEEN ABOUT AS FACTUAL AS MSNBC PRIME TIME WHEN
IT CAME TO BENGHAZI. HE NEEDS TO TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK AT HIMSELF.

APA reports Turkey's
"Prime Minister Recept Tayyip Erdogan has said Turkey is prepared to
bring Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to a hospital in Turkey after he
suffered a heart attack". A heart attack? A stroke? A coma? Details
shift depending upon the outlet.

What is known is that Jalal Talabani was taken to the hospital last night. All Iraq News noted
a statement from his office stated that it was a health emergency and
that the President of Iraq was fatigued due to the recent political
crisis and from his efforts to mediate the crisis between Baghdad and
Erbil. Alsumaria also noted the statement that it states he was exhausted. Aaad Abedine (CNN) was among the first to note it was a stroke and in the most recent update
quotes Kurdistan Alliance MP Mahmoud Othman stating, "His health
condition is not very good." However, Talabani's office throughout the
day did not say "stroke."

By 3:00 pm Baghdad time, Suadad al-Salhy, Isabel Coles, Patrick Markey and Michael Roddy (Reuters) were citing
unnamed "government sources" declaring Talabani in "critical but stable
condition." They weren't the only one citing government sources at
that time. For example, Alsumaria reports Talabani's health is deteriorating and that he is now in a coma according to "government sources." Kitabat went with an unnamed medical source who stated that Talabani was "clinically dead.". All Iraq News was noting that he has not regained conscious and that brain damage is feared. They also noted
that Talabani's office has issued a new statement declaring the
emergency health condition -- again, Talabani's office avoided
specifics -- was a result of the hardening of his arteries and repeat
the statement that his condition is stable.

Again, that
was what was in the news cycle earlier today (it was morning in the
US). It's already Wednesday in Iraq, early morning hours, and details
are not any clearer nor any more concrete. In their headline, the
Independent of London states "Stroke leaves President in a coma" (the text of the report doesn't mention a coma). Adam Schreck and Qaasim Abdul-Zahara (AP) call it a stroke and note that some reports "say Talabani may be in a coma." BBC News reports, "Well-placed Kurdish sources say he remains in a coma." As American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin points out at CNN's Global Public Square,
"The president's health has long been shaky; Talabani has made a half
dozen trips to Minnesota's Mayo clinic in recent years for various
ailments exacerbated by obesity and diabetes, compounded by years of
excessive smoking and drinking. Talabani's extended absences have become
commonplace. Just this past summer, Talabani was absent from Iraq for
almost two months after suffering complications from knee surgery."

With
the lack of clarity as to Talabani's condition, focus turns to what
happens if he passes away or is unable to continue as president? All Iraq News cites
the Constitution and explains that should the office of president
become vacant, the vice president would preside for no more than 30
days. There would be an election (elected by the Parliament) within 30
days to determine who would be the next president. We'll come back to
that in a minute. Kitabat notes
politicians are discussing succession issues and, should Talabani step
down, pass away or be unable to continue in office, most are stating
that Talabani's deputy in the PUK, Barham Salih, would be the next
elected president of Iraq. Conservative Michael Rubin offers
his belief that there will also be a push for Hoshyar Zebari. Hoshyar
Zebari is a Kurd (like Talabani and Salih) and he is in his second term
as Foreign Minister of Iraq. In that role he has traveled regularly to
meet with various foreign officials (such as Euopean Union High
Commissioner Catherine Ashton, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton,
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, etc.). Lack of clarity
also prompted Osama al-Nujaifi to return home. All Iraq News reports
the Speaker of Parliament was in the midst of his scheduled trip to
India when he learned of Talabani's hospitalization and he ended his
official visit to return to Iraq. Though al-Nujaifi returned on his
own, it is also true that as one the "three presidencies" noted in the
Constitution (the others are the prime minister and the president), the
Speaker of Parliament does need to be present in Iraq during a time of
national uncertainty.

And if "national uncertainty" seems a bit much to some, please note that Alsumaria reports
the Islamic Union of Kurdistan (a minor political party in the KRG)
used today to launch a verbal attack on both Talabani and KRG President
Massoud Barzani.

Jalal is in his second term
as president of the constitutional republic of Iraq, his first term
began in April of 2006. Per the Iraqi Constitution, he cannot seek a
third term. (Jalal was also president in 2005 prior to the writing and
ratification of the Constitution.) He is a leader not only of the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (one of the KRG's two major political
parties) but also of the Talabani tribe. While his official power
derives from the Constitution, his prominence on the world stage results
from his personal biography as well as that of his wife Hero Ibrahim
Ahmed, First Lady of Iraq. Dropping back to the December 5th snapshot:

Like
many notable Iraqis, her family has a long history of involvement in
Iraqi politics and in being persecuted. Novelist Ibrahim Ahmad was her
father. He was also a judge and one of the first chairs of the
Kurdistan Democratic Party (the first after it changed its name).
Moving up the political chain in Iraq has always meant creating
enemies. He would end up in Abu Ghraib prison for two years. He would
go on to become an editor of a newspaper and, more importantly to the
political situation, the voice of the KDP following it's split into two
parties -- the other, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, would be headed
by Mustafa Barzani. Today the PUK is headed by Massoud Barzani who is
also the President of the Kurdistan Regional Government. He is the son
of the late Mustafa Barzani. Mustafa's grandson is KRG Prime Minister
Nechirvan Barzani.

Jalal and Hero have been
married for over thirty years -- by all accounts a happy marriage -- and
their own personal histories and experiences go to why Jalal has been
an international presence. When Parliament votes in a new president,
which may not be until 2014 when Talabani's term expires, it is very
doubtful that anyone with the same national or international stature
will be the president. (Although Hero Ibrahim Ahmed would obviously
have a similar stature and the Talabani tribe has long supported women
politicians. It was nieces of Jalal's that were most vocal in decrying
Nouri's Cabinet in January 2011 for it's lack of women.) The editorial board of Lebanon's Daily Star observes,
"Replacing Talabani with someone as charismatic and experienced, with
the same skills of mediation, and with as few blemishes on his
nationalism, will be no easy task, especially for a government's whose
reputation has thus far been far from clean."

Jonathan
Blakley: Okay. President Talabani, he's sidelined. I'm wondering what
you know about his health because there's been a lot of kind of wild
speculation on how badly he is right now. Apparently, it's a stroke.
And also, do you -- are you fearful that with him sidelined, could there
be some instability up there in northern Iraq and Kurdistan?

Victoria
Nuland: Well let me start by saying that our thoughts are with
President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, his family, and the people of Iraq.
We wish him a full recovery. I frankly don't have any information
beyond what his office has put out with regard to his health. I think
you know that we have been urging calm, we've been urging dialogue. We
were pleased with the initial agreement between Peshmerga and Iraqi
forces. We want that kind of calm to continue. We want stability to be
observed, obviously, up there. But we'll just have to see how he is
going forward.

Some will see -- I know I will -- more genuince concern in the US Embassy in Baghdad's Tweet than in all of Nuland's blathering.

Let's drop back to December 17, 2011 because clearly some need their memories jogged of when Nouri last turned the military on enemies in Baghdad:

Ines Tariq (Al Mada) reports
on the controversy over whether or not the country's Supreme Court has
issued an arrest warrant for Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tareq
al-Hashemi. Reportedly, Nouri al-Maliki wants al-Hashemi arrested.
Nouri's political slate is State of Law. They came in second in the
parliamentary elections. Iraqiya came in first. al-Hashemi is a member
of Iraqiya. Iraqiya made clear Friday that things were changing and
today they walked out of the Parliament.Meanwhile Al Rafidayn reports
Nouri al-Malikis asking Parliament for a vote to withdraw confidence in
Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq. Nouri states he al-Mutlaq is
no longer able to hold office as a result of an interview he gave to
CNN. Tuesday, Arwa Damon and Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reported:

Iraqi
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is amassing dictatorial power as U.S.
troops leave the country, risking a new civil war and the breakup of the
nation, his deputy warned

Tuesday.Deputy
Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq told CNN that he was "shocked" to hear
U.S. President Barack Obama greet al-Maliki at the White House on Monday
as "the elected leader of a sovereign, self-reliant and democratic
Iraq." He said Washington is leaving Iraq "with a dictator" who has
ignored a power-sharing agreement, kept control of the

country's security forces and rounded up hundreds of people in recent weeks.[. . .]"America
left Iraq with almost no infrastructure. The political process is going
in a very wrong direction, going toward a dictatorship," he said.
"People are not going to accept that, and most likely they are going to
ask for the division of the country. And this is going to be a disaster.
Dividing the country isn't going to be smooth, because dividing the
country is going to be a war before that and a war after that."Like Tareq al-Hashemi, Saleh al-Mutlaq is a member of the Iraqiya political slate. Dar Addustour is reporting
that the homes of al-Hashemi and al-Mutlaq as well as the home of Rafi
Hiyad al-Issawi have been surrounded by "tanks and special forces." Dr.
Rafi Hiyad al-Issawi was the previous Deputy prime minister (2007
through 2010). He was the head of Falluja General Hospital prior to that
and he is currently the Minister of Finance. Like the other two,
al-Issawi is a member of Iraqiya.

[. . .]

[. . .] Liz Sly (Washington Post) notes
that the 'government' is "unraveling faster than had been anticipated
Saturday." She also notes, "In recent days, the homes of top Sunni
politicians in the fortified Green Zone have been ringed by tanks and
armored personnel carriers, and rumors are flying that arrest warrants
will be issued for other Sunni leaders." For days? Plural. "In recent
days."

He's again using the military to surround and intimidate someone he has labeled an enemy, the editor of Al Mada
newspaper. That should alarm and bother everyone. That should bother
Iraqis because why the hell is the Iraqi military -- especially
considering the last days of violence -- being stationed at Fakhri
Karim's home? How is the editor of a newspaper a military target?
This is an attack on the press and it's appalling and it's disgusting. This morning I called out the Committee to Protect Journalists for refusing to stand up for Fakhri.
In doing so, I noted that they didn't have their Iraq count correct
(they list only 3 murdered journalists for 2012) and their new report
was wrong because it claims that there were no murdered journalists in
2012 and I went over a Saturday phone call I had with a CPJ friend
over their silence on Nouri using the military Friday to shut down
satellite channel Al-Baghdadi in Iraq. The friend called later in the
morning to angrily inform me that late yesterday afternoon CPJ did
issue a statement calling that out. So let me include the link
and now let me note that we argued on the phone (loudly) about this
Saturday, Sunday and Monday morning. I'm glad they finally decided to
issue a statement and let me say I was wrong this morning when I said they hadn't issued one.
Let me further note that they did a much better job than I did (not
very hard to do) by noting that the radio station was Radio Al-Mahaba
(the press accounts I read and linked to had the radio station being
part of Al-Baghdadia, it's not, it's an independent women's radio
station). So praise to you for that but, please CPJ, explain to me
exactly how many phone calls need to take place and how loudly I need to
scream into the phone for you to note Iraq because you still haven't
noted Fakhri?

Yeah, you finally noted al-Baghdadi. But it's closed. Fakhri is alive and Al Mada
is publishing. At what point are you going to defend them? And when
are you going to call out turning the military loose on the media? In
what non-failed state is that suddenly acceptable?

But
please do let me know exactly how long and how loud I need to yell over
the phone to get concern expressed for Fakhri. I don't know him, I've
never met him. I know the paper he's the editor of, Al Mada. I
know it does strong work and has consistently had strong reporting. If
it makes a mistake, it corrects it. It's a responsible paper and one
that does investigative reporting. It should be considered a national
treasure and a point of pride for the international journalism
community.

Like most papers covering Iraq, it has been repeatedly targeted. Back in July, we were noting how both it and Kitabat were hacked and "May 25th, Al Mada reported
on how their website was experiencing daily attacks causing the site to
crash. They were down for the entire month of June. When they came
back up last week (they came up on Thursday, June 28th, they were able
to add new content Friday, June 29th), they really hoped CloudFlare was
going to help. But it hasn't. They've been down since Wednesday."

So Al Mada's
on it's own? Fakhri is on his own? So much for some sort of 'family
of journalists' around the world. Apparently there's family and then
there's step-family and the step-children will be ignored and left on
their own as though this weren't the 21st century but instead some
Grimm's fairy tale.